COLUMN-Stories I'd like to see: America's lobbying and following a wonder drug's money trail

February 26, 2013|Reuters

(Steven Brill is a Reuters columnist but his opinions are hisown.)

By Steven Brill

Feb 26 (Reuters) - Let's begin this column with a quiz, onedesigned to test your story-generating talents. If the answercomes to you within 10 seconds, you, too, could be an editor orTV news producer. If you are an editor or producer and don't seeit instantly, you need better radar.

First, read the opening two sentences from a story thatappeared in the Financial Times a few weeks ago:

"Europe's most senior justice official is adamant she willfight US attempts to water down a proposed EU data protectionand privacy law that would force global technology companies toobey European standards across the world. Viviane Reding, EUcommissioner for justice, said that the EU was determined torespond decisively to any attempts by US lobbyists - manyworking for large tech groups such as Google and Facebook - tocurb the EU data protection law."

What's the story that screams out to be written or televisedbased on these two sentences? Hint: It's all about howWashington has been brought to its knees by special interests.

The answer: Let's compare lobbying practices and regulationsin the United States to those in other venues, including theEuropean Union and its constituent countries. This story - withits reference to the EU commissioner vowing to fight "attemptsby U.S. lobbyists," which are the words that rang the idea bellin my head - presents the perfect backdrop for reporting I'vewanted to see for years comparing how lobbying is done, if atall, in other developed democracies to the way lobbyists and bigmoney have come to dominate the agenda in Washington.

The rest of the Financial Times story explains that Americanlobbyists for tech companies seem to have persuaded the U.S.government to push back against the EU's plans to promulgateprivacy protections for consumers that would impair the abilityof companies such as Facebook and Google to collect data fromusers in ways that will continue to boost their advertisingrevenue. In other words, the companies' lobbyists in Washingtonhave recruited our government to become their lobbyists at theEU.

One implication of that is that Google and Facebook,juggernauts though they are, can't deploy their own lobbyists inBelgium the way they can in Washington. Is that true? What arethe regulations or traditions that limit the effectiveness oflobbyists in venues like the EU?

Following the battles over other big issues that crossnational borders could add texture to the story. How, forexample, have Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase tried toinfluence banking regulations around the world, including thecrucial Basel rules on capital and liquidity?

These questions could lead to a tour of various worldcapitals describing how the influence industry works, or doesn'twork, in each place. Are the results always better? I bet noteverywhere. True, America's open system of influence peddling -in which lobbyists have to register and report their fees - isthe embodiment of Michael Kinsley's famous observation that thereal scandal in Washington "isn't what's illegal but what'slegal." Yet a balanced approach to this story might find notonly examples of governments with a far cleaner process moregrounded in the public interest, but also places where simpleunder-the-table bribes make Washington's K Street culture looktame.

Following a wonder drug's bottom line:

This story in Saturday's New York Times about the Food andDrug Administration approving a promising new breast cancer drugsuggests a reporting project that could produce a dramatic taleof scientific discovery along with an important look at theeconomics of the pharmaceutical industry. It could also open awindow on the health and public policy issues associated withhow we regulate drugs and drug prices and how we allocatehealthcare resources in the United States.

According to the New York Times:

"The drug, which will be called Kadcyla but was known asT-DM1 during its development, extended the median survival ofwomen with advanced breast cancer by nearly half a year in aclinical trial.

"Genentech, which developed the drug, said it would costabout $9,800 a month, or $94,000 for a typical course oftreatment. That is about twice the price of Herceptin itself,which is also made by Genentech, but it is similar to the priceof some other new cancer drugs."

Many tough questions flow from just those two paragraphs.This seems to mean that patients will get to live "nearly half ayear" extra if they or their insurance company (or Medicare ifthe patient is 65 or older) pays $47,000 - the differencebetween the cost of the new drug and the one a breast cancervictim would otherwise take.